digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover and share the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

1,000 Attempt Citizen's Arrest Of Bush

roguegovernment.com — Under the principles of the Nuremburg Trials at the end of World War Two, Bush would be indictable for all four counts established back then: 1. Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of crime against peace; 2. Planning, initiating and waging wars of aggression and other crimes against peace; 3. War crimes; 4. Crime

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • lukifer, on 11/05/2007, -33/+360This is a brilliant idea. The judiciary seems to be our only hope left to maintain checks-and-balances, since Congress still can't find a spine. We could skip impeachment and go straight to indictment; the evidence is damn near overwhelming at this point.
    • Noctem, on 11/05/2007, -81/+23Is it now? Do tell! Please cite sources, also, of indictable/impeachable offenses.
      • NickSpinner, on 10/10/2007, -33/+18you say that like there arent any, traitor
        • DavidBGie, on 10/10/2007, -17/+6TAS em Bro! Stupid dirty hippies.
          • GawtMilk, on 10/10/2007, -13/+6Still no facts or sources, a typical Digg attack. I'm impartial towards Bush, but sources from REPUTABLE outlets would help.
          • userspacename, on 10/10/2007, -10/+4I agree with GawtMilk. Do I want to continue visiting a site that buries someone asking for sources?
          • luciferin, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2You had better turn of your computer, take every book you own into your back yard to light them on fire and then pop your ear drums. Otherwise you're going to have to learn to put up with senseless criticism.
      • notque, on 10/10/2007, -11/+108Noam Chomsky -

        The invasion of Iraq was about as clear-cut a case of aggression than you can imagine. In fact, by the Nuremberg principles, if you read them carefully, the U.S. war against Nicaragua was a crime of aggression for which Ronald Reagan should have been tried. But, it’s inconceivable; you can’t even mention it in the West. And the reason is our radical denial of the most elementary moral truisms. We just flatly reject them. We don’t even think we reject them, and that’s even worse than rejecting them outright.

        If we were able to say to ourselves, ‘Look, we are totally immoral, we don’t accept elementary moral principles,’ that would be a kind of respectable position in a certain way. But, when we sink to the level where we cannot even perceive that we’re violating elementary moral principles and international law, that’s pretty bad. But, that’s the nature of the intellectual culture--not just in the United States--but in powerful societies everywhere.
        • gquaglia, on 10/10/2007, -35/+5Noam Chomsky is a douche - me
          • DavidBGie, on 10/10/2007, -26/+2The title should read "1,000 brain washed left wing idiots try to perform a lame ass "citizens" arrest on the one of the best presidents of the United States". Bush 1 Libtards 0.
          • felman87, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1I thought Ronald Reagan was the best president. ***** Kerry, it's neo-cons that are the flip-floppers
        • leunghoi, on 10/10/2007, -2/+17So, we need lawyers to tell us what's morally correct? We haven't sunken this low, right?
          • WhiteRaven, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3We're talking about law at the moment so yes, let's talk to a lawyer. We are talking about a legal proceeding.
          • dinostabOMG, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I thought Chomsky is a linguist, not a lawyer?
          • dinostabOMG, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I thought Chomsky is a linguist, not a lawyer?
      • notque, on 10/10/2007, -9/+62Noam Chomsky -

        Let’s take the Iraq war. There’s libraries of material arguing about the war, debating it, asking ‘What should we do?’, this and that, and the other thing. Now, try to find a sentence somewhere that says that ‘carrying out a war of aggression is the supreme international crime, which differs from other war crimes in that it encompasses all the evil that follows’ (paraphrasing from Nuremberg). Try to find that somewhere. I mean, you can find it. I’ve written about it, and you can find a couple other dozen people who have written about it in the world. But, is it part of the intellectual culture? Can you find it in a newspaper, or in a journal; in Congress; any public discourse; anything that’s part of the general exchange of knowledge and ideas? I mean, do students study it in school? Do they have courses where they teach students that ‘to carry out a war of aggression is the supreme international crime which encompasses all the evil that follows’?

        So, for example, if sectarian warfare is a horrible atrocity, as it is, who’s responsible? By the principles of Nuremberg, Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rice -- they’re responsible for sectarian warfare because they carried out the supreme international crime which encompasses all the evil that follows. Try and find somebody who points that out. You can’t. Because, our dominant intellectual culture accepts as legitimate our crushing anybody we like.

        Take Iran. Both political parties and practically the whole press accept it as legitimate and, in fact, honorable, that ‘all options are on the table’, presumably including nuclear weapons, to quote Hilary Clinton and everyone else. ‘All options are on the table’ means we threaten war. Well, there’s something called the U.N. Charter, which outlaws ‘the threat or use of force’ in international affairs. Does anybody care? Actually, I saw one op-ed somewhere by Ray Takeyh, an Iran specialist close to the government, who pointed out that threats are serious violations of international law. But that’s so rare that when you find it it’s like finding a diamond in a pile of hay. It’s not part of the culture. We’re allowed to threaten anyone we want--and to attack anyone we want. And, when a person grows up and acts in a culture like that, they’re culpable in a sense, but the culpability is much broader.

        I was just reading a couple days ago a review of a new book by Steven Miles, a medical doctor and bioethicist, who ran through 35,000 pages of documents he got from the Freedom of Information Act on the torture in Abu Ghraib. And the question that concerned him is, ‘What were the doctors doing during all of this?’ All through those torture sessions there were doctors, nurses, behavioral scientists and others who were organizing them. What were they doing when this torture was going on? Well, you go through the detailed record and it turns out that they were designing and improving it. Just like Nazi doctors.

        Robert Jay Lifton did a big study on Nazi doctors. He points out in connection with the Nazi doctors that, in a way, it’s not those individual doctors who had the final guilt, it was a culture and a society which accepted torture and criminal activities as legitimate. The same is true with the tortures at Abu Ghraib. Just to focus on them as if they’re somehow terrible people is just a serious mistake. They’re coming out of a culture that regards this as legitimate. Maybe there are some excesses you don’t really do but torture in interrogation is considered legitimate.

        There’s a big debate now on, ‘Who’s an enemy combatant?’; a big technical debate. Suppose we invade another country and we capture somebody who’s defending the country against our invasion: what do you mean to call them an ‘enemy combatant’? If some country invaded the United States and let’s say you were captured throwing a rock at one of the soldiers, would it be legitimate to send you to the equivalent of Guantanamo, and then have a debate about whether you’re a ‘lawful’ or ‘unlawful’ combatant? The whole discussion is kind of, like, off in outer space somewhere. But, in a culture which accepts that we own and rule the world, it’s reasonable.

        But, also, we should go back to the roots of the intellectual or moral culture, not just to the individuals directly involved.
        • ButterBuddha, on 10/10/2007, -47/+6"Noam Chomsky is a total douche bag; a pathetic, balls-less communist, douche bag" - Ayn Rand
          • notque, on 10/10/2007, -2/+36He isn't a communist. He's a libertarian socialist. He was against communism and certainly Bolshevism as he's written many times. You can smear anyone, but to counter their arguments in the sign of rational debate.
          • EricSchC1, on 10/10/2007, -1/+19http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayn_Rand

            Rand detested many prominent liberal and conservative politicians of her time, including prominent anti-Communists, such as Harry S. Truman, Ronald Reagan, Hubert Humphrey, and Joseph McCarthy.[41] She opposed US involvement in World War I, World War II[42] and the Korean War, although she also strongly denounced pacifism: "When a nation resorts to war, it has some purpose, rightly or wrongly, something to fight for – and the only justifiable purpose is self-defense."[43] She opposed U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War, "If you want to see the ultimate, suicidal extreme of altruism, on an international scale, observe the war in Vietnam – a war in which American soldiers are dying for no purpose whatever,"
          • TWINFM, on 10/10/2007, -2/+25The fact that she calls him a communist as an insult total discredits her. Here's a quote, "Ayn Rand is a ho-bag; a hypocritical, elitist ho-bag" -Me
          • Flower2112, on 10/10/2007, -2/+14I'd consider such a denouncement from Ayn Rand to be the highest of praise.
          • biotch, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5unfortunately for you ... the law does not recognize terms like "douche bag" or "balls-less". People have to support their disagreements with facts which you fail to do. Someone asked why Bush is impeachable, others answered, and your response is to just call someone a douche bag? ... impeachment FTW
          • felman87, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Considering that the word douchebag didn't even exist during Rand's time, I question your quote
        • WhiteRaven, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1I have a very simple question. What measures are permissible to stop wars of aggression or campaigns of widespread violence *before* they start? Is a "war of aggression" now less desirable than a decade-spanning conflict which will kill tens of millions?

          How does one go about bringing stability to a region that is the epicenter for a world-wide wave of violence and subjugation?

          It is fundamentally wrong both morally and logically to to categorically condemn all "wars of aggression" without considering the purpose of the war. What travesty might we forstall by engaging in such a war? When people choose to ignore history and the nature of humanity they can declare things like "a war of aggression is the supreme international crime". Sometimes it is a greater crime to not preemptively strike.

          No, none one cares what the UN charter says. It is a worthless document that fails to achieve *any* goal. The use of threats of force is the only bargaining chip of any real meaning. DIPLOMACY CAN NOT TAKE PLACE WITHOUT SUCH THREATS. There is simply no incentive for dialog without the danger of loss. This is basic to human psychology... you can't wish such basic facts away or insist that people behave rational when in truth we are not rational animals. We are animals that are driven by instinct and emotion that also happen to be capable of reason... but that reason does not have any real impact on our basic behavior.

          Get your head out of the clouds and begin evaluating the world according to the realities of human nature. No document such as the UN charter or the Geneva convention will ever accomplish anything. Only strength and the willingness to use it has ever accomplished anything. Bemoan or deny this reality all you like but it is a fact born out by every single chapter of history. This is not a philosophy, it is a fact of nature. It is what the human animal is.

          Any philosophy or strategy that expects rational behavior from human being is doomed to failure.
          • Fordi, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2You make good points, and I'd like to address them.

            "I have a very simple question. What measures are permissible to stop wars of aggression or campaigns of widespread violence *before* they start? Is a 'war of aggression' now less desirable than a decade-spanning conflict which will kill tens of millions?"

            Diplomacy, neogtiation, etc. According to our president, our current 'war of aggression' may indeed span decades with an unknown body count.

            "How does one go about bringing stability to a region that is the epicenter for a world-wide wave of violence and subjugation?"

            Apparently, not by brining a further wave of violence and subjugation to the region (as we have done).

            "It is fundamentally wrong both morally and logically to to categorically condemn all 'wars of aggression' without considering the purpose of the war."

            Possibly, but I doubt it; essentially, you're saying a war to 'kill them before they kill us or others' can potentially be a good war. I'd submit that your moral compass needs calibrated.

            "What travesty might we forstall by engaging in such a war?"

            What you're implying is whether the body count will be lower if we attack, or if we aggressively lobby the leaders of the agressive country.

            "When people choose to ignore history and the nature of humanity they can declare things like 'a war of aggression is the supreme international crime'."

            Tell that to those who sentenced the Nazis in the Nurenburg trials.

            "Sometimes it is a greater crime to not preemptively strike."

            Wow. I always hate to invoke Godwin, but that is exactly the mindset of pre-WWII Nazi Germany.

            "No, none one cares what the UN charter says. It is a worthless document that fails to achieve *any* goal."

            The reason for this is that managing nations is much like herding cats; they'll do what they want, most of the time. That the document is well written, and contains many truths and moral ideals on the behavior of soverignty seems notwithstanding. It doesn't help that the present violator of UN law sits on the security council here.

            "The use of threats of force is the only bargaining chip of any real meaning. DIPLOMACY CAN NOT TAKE PLACE WITHOUT SUCH THREATS."

            I disagree; plying your target with economic advantages and disadvantages is quite sufficient to, for example, keep the US and China out of each others' business.

            "There is simply no incentive for dialog without the danger of loss. This is basic to human psychology... you can't wish such basic facts away or insist that people behave rational when in truth we are not rational animals."

            This is very true, but it's also a truism that violence is the last resort of the incompetent; did you know that you can negotiate your way out of a fist-fight? It's relatively easy if you know which psychological buttons to push. International war may be a far more complex target for such manipulation, but it's not immune to it.

            "We are animals that are driven by instinct and emotion that also happen to be capable of reason... but that reason does not have any real impact on our basic behavior."

            Governments run on policies, not individual behavior. An ambassador may take offense to a comment, and believe that the only proper action is bloody war - but if his superiors don't agree, you can be his ass will be fired before a conflict starts.

            "Get your head out of the clouds and begin evaluating the world according to the realities of human nature."

            Part of human nature is that people recognize the requirements of survival; if you have the power to take any of *those* away at the bargaining table, war becomes irrelevant.

            "No document such as the UN charter or the Geneva convention will ever accomplish anything."

            Except hold those responsible for a tragic conflict after the fact.

            "Only strength and the willingness to use it has ever accomplished anything."

            That, my friend, is the most naive comment I've heard in a while; the numerous wars between France and Germany through history, for example, changed nothing. They didn't have real peace between them until the formation of the EU. Similarly, the American Civil War achieved nothing whatsoever, and merely cost lives and infrastructure. There are countless examples throughout history of war gaining nothing and negotiation creating prosperity.

            "Any philosophy or strategy that expects rational behavior from human being is doomed to failure."

            Human behavior is *always* rational on a large scale, if you understand swarm theory. Individuals act rationally based on their internal feedback and external stimuli. Understanding *why* the individuals in a swarm behave the way they do is integral in defending against that behavior in a nonviolent manner. Essentially, we're at war because we don't actually understand our enemy, and have no willingness to do so.

            What war "achieves" in these cases is to wear down the agression in the opposing sides to the point where stubbornness is no longer an option. Essentially, we devastate ourselves into trying to find a better solution. I don't have to tell you what a stupid course of action that always looks like in retrospect.

            War, ironically, always seems like a simple solution to our problems. "Eh, we can just carpet bomb the area; then they'll listen." That sort of thought is self deception; would you listen to the guy who just threatened to stab you, or would you attack him before he gets the chance? Would you negotiate with the guy who just stabbed you, or would you try your damndest to put him in a worse condition than yourself?

            There's the problem, of course. We've manipulated, robbed, and insulted the nations we want to 'bring democracy' to so many times in recent enough history to make it a problem, they *won't* listen to us. But that's just fine. The nations themselves piss in fear of getting on our bad side. The individuals, however, especially those disposessed and wealthy (such as Bin Laden), aren't afraid of dying to lift what they percieve as our opressive yoke.

            The point? We're concentrating this war on nations that hadn't the resources to attack us, and who have strong motivation not to attack us - while more or less ignoring the inviduals who can and want to strike against us in small but highly visible ways.

            There area reasons for it, of course. Financially speaking (not morally, mind you), attacking Iraq was a great idea on paper; go in, take out Saddam, organize peace, and pay for the costs in stolen oil. Of course, 4 years and over $400B later, it's not looking like such a good plan.

            Mind you, there's well over $400B in oil in Iraq - we can still pay for it if we can diffuse the Civil War... but we can't. While we are an interested party as far as oil goes, we don't really care about the people enough to be able to negotiate peace between a population that just aren't talking to each other either.
      • archistudent, on 10/10/2007, -5/+18Noctum,
        Pay attention:
        Article VI:
        "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land;"

        The UN Charter states that "All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means...". War can be used but only as a last resort and only under the direction of the UN Security Council.
        Bush attacked Iraq based on false pretenses and without UN permission. He, therefore, violated the UN Charter, the Nuremberg Charter, HJR114, and indirectly the Constitution. These are grounds for impeachment. (via: http://www.impeachbush.tv/args/noiraqauthority.htm ...
        • moin1097, on 10/10/2007, -21/+3The un was bought and paid for by saddam.
        • biotch, on 10/10/2007, -8/+5wow ... this is a very tired argument from years ago. Im curious as to why the UN still does not support our war in Iraq even long after Saddamn's regime was toppled.
          • moin1097, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1They had their illegal money source pulled out from under them. But they do recognize the coalition forces as a legal occupying force.

            I wonder how the investigation into the oil for "food" fiasco is going? You don't hear much about it these days.
        • Steroblo, on 10/10/2007, -5/+2lol at "indirectly the Constitution"....the most widely interpretable document in human history.
        • luciferin, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6I guess they get out on the technicality that we never declared war. Although even Bush himself has giving up on that and started calling it war. Hell, impeach him for that why don't you? The President does not have the ability to declare war, yet he has stated that we're at war.
          • WhiteRaven, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1Because casual statements do not equate to a declaration of war you idiot. If there's no document that declares a war then it can not be said that the executive branch has illegally declared a war. There is no limit whatsoever within the constitution on what military actions can be carried out without a declaration of war. There IS the War Powers Act... which Congress has not seen fit to enforce. One reason it has not been enforced is because it has never been upheld as constitutional in any court and there is wide-spread belief that it would be struck down in that it limits through simple act of congress powers granted to the President by the constitution. Congress can't do that without a constitutional amendment.
    • Pritchard, on 11/05/2007, -6/+33Alright. We managed to get tens of thousands of demonstrators at the White House this month protesting against the War. Who of us will make the stand and lead a citizen arrest? What about defensive police officers, though? They can't be charged as criminals for upholding their part of the law. Is it just to get past them, or to detain them if necessary?
      • mikewhite314, on 10/10/2007, -1/+35you'd have to wait until you had an opportunity to shake his hand, and then try not to get shot.
        • dasdef, on 10/10/2007, -1/+16oh man this would make an awesome headline
        • Fracture98, on 10/10/2007, -1/+11...or tombstone.
          • williamdyer, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6Everyone who thinks history cannot be repeated, like, for example, the retirement Mussolini got, tend to end up being wrong. We defied history briefly in Afghanistan. We fell completely into the trap in Iraq. History will catch up with Bush, too.
      • LeeSoong, on 10/10/2007, -1/+11the ww-2 trials demonstrated that ''i was only following orders'' is no defense for war crimes, they were all hung.

        mr. bush's subordinates have no legal defense hiding behind orders -the servants of evil will pay for their sins done in the name of their dark master.

        Hitler's monsters did not go free, when mr. cheney , mr. bush, and their coconspirators are brought to trial before the international court - the deserve the same fair trial until justice is served.

        mr. clinton was crucified for a love affair, what should be done for sponsoring war crimes and the brutal occupation of two countries?

        will the world wait until mr. bush goes on yet another killing spree - raining down a nuclear genocide upon the civilians of iran, with pakistan and india taking the brunt of casualties causing tens of thousands of radiation deaths from nuclear fall out?
        • Martlet, on 10/10/2007, -7/+2Then why don't you arrest Hillary first? She voted for it, and is more easily accessible.
        • rockinjoe, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5Bill Clinton wasn't crucified for a love affair. Bill Clinton was crucified for lying about having a love affair.
        • Beveridge89, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0Nuclear genocide on Iran? What retarded World do you live in. We'll bomb their military conventionally, nothing else.
    • kingkilr, on 10/10/2007, -28/+4Ummm... the president is immune from criminal prosecution, period, considering the fact that people on digg seem to worship the constitution where everything else is concerned I'm appalled at this hypocrisy.
      • Tyr7BE, on 10/10/2007, -3/+14Your constitution seriously says that the president cannot be prosecuted? If that's true, that is MESSED.
        • kingkilr, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7Not until after he is impeached by the house and convicted by the senate.
          • williamdyer, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Completely a myth. There is no immunity while in office, and impeachment is not part of the process of bringing criminal charges against a President.
      • Syntaxis, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5So what about -after- his presidency? His honorary title would still be "Mr President" (or so I've heard) - but does that give him political and/or presidential immunity, still?
      • WhiteRaven, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1kingkilr, you are factually wrong. There is no such immunity.
    • Manchowder, on 10/10/2007, -3/+15Bush v. Gore (2000)
    • EBFoxbat, on 10/10/2007, -2/+7I'm all in but how we gonna get into the bunker under the White House? And how we gonna stop the automatic gunfire that will be let loose? And where do we bring him?
      • TheGuruStud, on 10/10/2007, -4/+16By sheer numbers and our own weapons. If we had 10,000+ ppl bum rush any event that Dubya is attending, we could subdue everyone. They don't have enough ammo or man power to stop that (for a short period of time). In a matter of minutes you could kill every guard and done have bushies head cut off. Next step would be to bum rush the white house with 1 million+ and explosives. Burn it to the ground if necessary.
        • objectcode, on 10/10/2007, -15/+2sounds like terrorism
        • wshs, on 10/10/2007, -5/+3The motorcade includes two SUVs equipped with .50 calibre guns. The limos are reinforced against not just bullets, but also explosives. The SS guys in the dark gray suits are carrying machine guns. Two medic teams travel with the motorcade. On occasion, there's two motorcades on departure, and the return route isn't necessarily the same as the original. They might not have enough to stop 10,000 people, but they do have enough to hold 10,000+ people back until reinforcements arrive First stage reinforcements are no more than five minutes away. They usually rent an entire hotel. This doesn't include the 2 scout cars, the helicopter(s), or the police cars. It's foolish to think that you'd have a remote chance in hell of taking him forcefully... unless you multiplied that number of people by 10 or more.
          • physphd, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4RIght, cause they didn't get withing abot 10 meters of him in Austr(al)ia.
          • wshs, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Goddamn sack of ***** comment system.
            "Your session has expired, please refresh the page before commenting." even though it let me post this without reloading.
            @physphd:
            Nope. They got within a few meters of a building he was in. That's a big difference when there's thousands of pounds/kilograms between the assailant and target. And I'm sure if the crowd was 10,000 instead of 11, they wouldn't have got within 100 meters.
          • ragingradish, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5Was that reference to 'SS guys' a Freudian slip?
          • wshs, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4@ragingradish:
            Not sure what you mean there. "Secret Service guys." For the most part, it is guys. If you're lucky, you'll see up to two gals.
          • ragingradish, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3It's just that a lot of folks carelessly throw around the accusation of fascism with respect to the US Gov't (not you in particular). I know you meant Secret Service but SS also conjures up visions Nazi-era Schutzstaffel of goosestepping around while protecting GW, hence the Freudian slip
        • thunderer, on 10/10/2007, -2/+23Congratulations, the FBI now considers you a "person of interest"!
        • PathDaemon, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1That's a pretty big step from "citizens' arrest" to "bum rush the white house with...explosives." I'd be totally cool with the former, but not with the latter. The president's guards are just doing their jobs: no reason to kill anyone.

          Then again, this sure as hell isn't going to happen and I wouldn't be involved if it did. I'd cheer it on, though.
    • Intellectual77, on 10/10/2007, -4/+8Why not just behead?
      • Fracture98, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7He'd still make it to the end of term.
        • psycosulu, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0You mean like how a cockroach can live without it's head for awhile?
      • yodaj007, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3He might come back as a zombie. Nuke em from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.
        • CyanideMonkey, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Or send him into orbit ;) (No spacesuit)
    • jazzub, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5It's pretty clear the only possible way that things will change is if the people do it. Whether it worked or not, at least these people tried to do something. Unfortunately, I think these criminals (bush etc) already passed a bill that they are immune from war crimes. House Resolution HR6166.

      But if we do something day after day, in city after city, 100 times a day in a 100 cities... Even then I bet they got some trick up their blood soaked sleaves. But hey, they got the strength, we got the numbers. Anybody up for a coup?

      In the meantime stop using so much oil ! That'll hit em where it hurts the most if we all do it, day after day after day....
    • badarabdad, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4why is it congress's job to unelect a president? if you really don't like it, vote them out. hopefully some of the dumbfecks who voted for bush will vote democrat next election(and then will cease to be dumbfecks...on that issue). it's de-evolution everytime a republican is elected.
      • LeeSoong, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2americans don't vote - computers do.

        now, what numbers do you want for the preprogrammed vote count be?
    • darkciti2, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Why not just have thousands of people "Swear out a Warrant" to the District Attorney of D.C. ?
      They'll get the message then. I'm not sure how local police would affect an arrest and bring him before a court, though. It's certainly worth a try.

      Pelosi is next. We elected her to resolve the war situation, not to capitulate to it.
    • onetimeuse, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4How bout Digg users start campaigning for congressional election right now? Hell i'd rather vote for a 25 year old from digg than some 50 year old sell out any day. Maybe thats a start. Digg users in congress?
  • macman2k, on 10/10/2007, -20/+179The problem I see is that at any given time 1000 people could be gathered to serve a warrant on any president they didn't agree with. I think it is a brilliant way to bring attention to items, but you would need a million man march to bring an arrest warrant on the president.
    • Novion76, on 10/10/2007, -13/+73remember remember the fifth of november
      • imperium2000, on 10/10/2007, -7/+13Yes. That plot failed in reality and only succeeded in a comic.
      • postalblowfish7, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5this is REAL LIFE people, not some ***** comic book
    • h4ppydotcom, on 10/10/2007, -2/+74We had 1 million people (in London) march against the war in Iraq, but it didn't make any difference.
      • Beveridge89, on 10/10/2007, -13/+1Yeah, one million people making alliance with homophobic, sexist and anti-liberal groups, and not having the courage to break with them and support democrats in Iraq. Great job, assholes.
      • Thomar, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6Yeah, but isn't the point in question the influence of the opinion of people in one country on the government of another?
      • physphd, on 10/10/2007, -1/+9Really? How many British troops are left in country? Last I heard there was just a training garrison at the airport.
        • TotalHalibut, on 10/10/2007, -5/+2Then you might want to 'read' 'facts' before speaking again.

          "In 2003, the United Kingdom was the only other major contributor to the United States-led invasion of Iraq. There was great disagreement amongst the populace but the government voted for the conflict, with the result of sending over 45,000 army personnel to the region. The British Army is still the major coalition presence in the city of Basra and the Southern regions of Iraq. The British Army is not currently at war, but this is a conflict against groups acting within Iraq. The British Army's main duty in Iraq is peace-keeping." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Army#Iraq_War
          • physphd, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Son, this is not 2003. There are fewer than 5000 troops left in country total. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6954802.stm

            With regard to Basra, they're gone. http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,2161195,00 ...

            This has been a leading news story for almost 2 months. Wikipedia is NOT a news source. British leaders have been under tremendous pressure to withdraw and are doing so.
          • a6n28f, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1You don't keep up with current events do you, Total? British forces had fallen below 10,000 by the end of 2005/early 2006.
          • Beveridge89, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Which just goes to show you Iraq isn't completely *****. In the South, we're winning (if winning is the right term).
      • stone42, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1does that mean you just give up ??? if you are true to what you believe in you never give up, don`t be disheartened ,can you not see that the penny is finally dropping with a highly brainwashed and propagandised people? keep on going it will reach critical mass if you keep it up
    • dracostimpy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+37I see nothing wrong with it, so long as it is not a false arrest. We can't expect them to hold each other accountable in DC anymore, so it's up to us as citizens to arrest and convict them ourselves. If that means government slows to a standstill because 90% of them have a long list of criminal offenses, so be it because by the time the smoke clears, we'll perhaps at LONG last have a government that speaks FOR us instead of TO us.
      • fumar, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0and when was the last time you had that? "Good" Presidents make it seem that they are for you and in reality they are not.
    • dickdelish, on 10/10/2007, -13/+2Hey r-tard, why don't you think your statement through before making it next time? The point of a citizen's arrest is to arrest based on the law. 1000 pissed off people can make a scene, but if they attempt a citizen's arrest they need to have reasoning based on the law, which these 1000 people have and is outlined in this article. Thanks for an useless comment but the rest of us who actually think about what we say will still believe in ourselves.
    • notque, on 10/10/2007, -3/+48Civil Disobedience is a reasonable and rational response to war crimes.
      • JAVandiver, on 10/10/2007, -20/+4Please cite any indictment of these war crimes that you speak of...
        • notque, on 10/10/2007, -3/+21There is currently no indictment, that's what we are working towards. An indictment doesn't have any merit on the question of if something is true or not. That takes you working out on your own, and I have replied through this thread with many expressions of the case concerning his war crimes.
          • JAVandiver, on 10/10/2007, -8/+4That is exactly what an indictment is, a designation of whether there is sufficient evidence to levy charges. In a society based upon a rule of law that is absolutely necessary for justice. But that is not what you are interested in is it?
          • AKBryant54, on 10/10/2007, -0/+9The President has expanded his powers in such a way that it seems he is no longer accountable to the rule of law. The executive has shown a complete disregard for our constitutionally limited government and any mode of operation therein.
          • fumar, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Bush didnt wake up one day and suddenly have the idea, hey I'll increase the power of the Executive branch! No this is a long process. The Executive branch has become stronger after each President since FDR. You have finally realized it now that there is a President using that power to do something you do not like.
    • oldman, on 10/10/2007, -1/+34What is being suggested is NOT 1000 people arresting a president they don't like, but 1000 people arresting a president who has flaunted his contempt for the law, the country and its people for nearly 6 years.
      • kaelyiesta, on 10/10/2007, -3/+6You missed the point. Allowing the second and understandable action also allows the first. Do you not see that you cannot simply say 'if 1000 people gather to arrest the president then they aught to be able to' and expect it to only be used when it is justifiable? How you suggest such power should be used is not necessarily how it would be used.
        • monkeyvoodoo, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4I would rather have presidents get arrested too often than have them abuse their power and ruin the country.

          Also, it's not as though an arrest is the same as a conviction.
        • Beveridge89, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Yeah give a bunch of far-leftists Bush; in their minds its justifiable to kill him, and since he won't be convicted, I wouldn't be surprised if thats what they'd do.
    • EBFoxbat, on 10/10/2007, -10/+2Wait a minute.... they tied to uphold US law against the President on International Land? Hysterical.
    • Intellectual77, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8Well a team of less than 12 killed Kennedy. I think 1,000 will do.
    • ozjonesjr, on 10/10/2007, -6/+0Wow. That's a whole .0003% (approx.) of the US population. Not quite the majority is it?
    • Scaryclouds, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Amen
    • Vicujozobenaxod, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I agree with the first half completely. This is just the left's latest idea to attack Bush yet again. It serves no purpose other than to say, "SEE! You can't even get a citizen's arrest on Bush for his *dirty* crimes! POLICE STATE! INJUSTICE! NEOCON!".

      Pathetic, really. All these "crimes" against peace? What a load of *****. Here's a crime against peace, attacking the United States and killing thousands of innocent people. They drew first blood, not us.
      • Boozewald, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Wait.... so the fact that we had been screwing with them for YEARS before that has nothing to do with them attacking us? We started this mess, 9-11 was merely repercussions for our meddling with other countries. It was only a matter of time before someone actually got pissed enough to do something about it.
  • Shigglyboo, on 10/10/2007, -15/+157"Police had already set up a protest pen" = WTF?
    how do you arrest people who are trying to arrest someone for breaking the law? world has turned upside down I say.
    • Nougat, on 10/10/2007, -7/+75The "protest pen" is the place where protesters are allowed to do their protesting - usually far away from anyone or anything having to do with the event they're trying to reach participants and spectators of. It's a way for the right to free speech to be upheld - by only allowing certain speech to be made where no one else will hear it.

      All in the name of security, of course. Indeed, it is security - it secures the propaganda of the powerful over the voice of the citizen.
      • LastVisibleDog, on 10/10/2007, -3/+18I believe Bill Clinton was the first president to use "protest zones"
    • jaywon, on 10/10/2007, -3/+6Yes, you're right. When two wrongs make a right, then the world has been turned upside down.
    • sodoh, on 10/10/2007, -1/+10They are not protest Pens. They are freedom zones! All Bush is doing is protecting its citizens to voice their opinion in a nice safe cage! Why do you hate America?
    • Lorwik, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I thought we were smarter than this. Where are the American's who stand up to evil? Yea, superhero like, like back in the dack.
  • Frankenbeans, on 10/10/2007, -8/+49Great idea...execution might be a bit more difficult, especially if you don't like rubber bullets and tasers.
    • OMGWTFROFLMAOx2, on 10/10/2007, -3/+23I would think pepper spray and attack dogs would be a bigger concern than tasers.
      • screwzluse, on 10/10/2007, -11/+4Not when you're on Digg..
      • fumar, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1There are these things called guns. Sometimes they are used. Thats what you should be concerned about.
    • swrostmore, on 10/10/2007, -4/+16I'd be most concerned with the riot shotgun/rock salt combination. And attack dogs.
    • llamapalooza87, on 10/10/2007, -27/+12Anyone?
      Anyone at all?

      ...

      ...nobody's gonna do it?

      All right then, I'll say it.

      "Don't tase me, Bro!"
    • bobbydiamondz, on 10/10/2007, -23/+1Don't tas me bro!

      /obligatory ref
    • EBFoxbat, on 10/10/2007, -8/+3Don't rubber bullet me bro!
  • screamthenrun, on 10/10/2007, -20/+67this is kinda a cool protest idea... but there is a technical flaw Quote from article: "The idea of citizen's arrest has its roots in common law, and allows for any citizen to execute an arrest on someone who they witness committing a felony offense." i seriously doubt that any of them literally "witnessed" Bush doing anything... nice try tho
    • mwolfzorn, on 10/10/2007, -13/+6If you saw Charles Manson walking down the street after hearing he just escaped from prison I'm pretty sure you could make a citizens arrest and detain him.
      • jcaino, on 10/10/2007, -9/+5we've all seen him lie...
      • GiggleStick, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Because you are seeing him being escaped from prison, which is probably a felony. Was logic always so hard for you?
    • notque, on 10/10/2007, -7/+29Aggression is the supreme war crime which entails all crimes that extend from it. We "witnessed" his order for it.
      • Snarfy, on 10/10/2007, -3/+4"...any citizen to execute an arrest on someone who they witness committing a felony offense."

        That's not just a general sentence though. That's the legal definition of the law. Every single word in that sentence probably has a page full of definition behind it. The definition of "witness" would definitely come into play.
    • xxxana, on 10/10/2007, -2/+14you don't have to be physically near someone to witness him/her do something. Even when you see it on tv, you're a witness.
    • manixrock, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2"as commander in chief, Bush bears command responsibility for the actions of those under his command as well as for his own policies." - His constituancies are subject to the principles of the Nuremburg Trials and thus the entire world is witness to the breaking of the laws by those under his command.
    • VitriolAndAngst, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I'm not supposed to believe my own lying eyes?
      Damn these faith-based initiatives!
  • Etchii, on 10/10/2007, -22/+153Why the ***** would over 1,000 protesters allow a handful of guards to stop them? ***** take over that *****!
    I'm sorry, but if a mob of 1,000+ people REALLY want to get into a building, they could.

    • Treshnell, on 10/10/2007, -5/+44The 1000 could, but the weakness is the one who says to himself that he's going to get hurt or in serious trouble and stops. Almost everyone takes the part of a one in a crowd of 1000.
    • fnaqzna, on 10/10/2007, -2/+54True, and if a few million peoplre REALLY wanted to overthrow a violent oppressive government, they could (without the help of some other country on the other side of the planet).
      • OHaloThar, on 10/10/2007, -5/+2not really, the organizers are killed before they can do anything
        • diggrim, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3don't let logic get in the way of his argument
    • claxton6, on 10/10/2007, -11/+23that is the dumbest comment I've ever read.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiananmen_Square_prot ...
    • Nougat, on 10/10/2007, -3/+68If a mob of 1000 people wanted to get into a building, yes, *some* of them could, provided that a lot of them would be willing to stand their ground and be shot.

      As much as people in the US complain about a lot of things, there's not a whole lot that any of us would stand in a public street and get shot over. We are too mollified.

      Maybe we could outsource our protesting to Burma.
      • Beveridge89, on 10/10/2007, -15/+3You honestly think whats happening in Burma is even vaguely similar to the US situation? They need to protest to overthrow their leaders and gain freedom. You just need to wait a year and vote.
    • Brand83, on 10/10/2007, -11/+6One man with a gun can be the equivalent of at least 6 without.

      DC citizens are not aloud to carry fire arms
      • eunosx, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6Just across the river from VA though...5 minute background check and your handgun of choice can be in your possession. Oh, and if you're not from VA just ask a friend, there is no handgun registration here and the state government has commented numerous times that they have no idea how many guns are in the state
      • Qtip42, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Probably because there's a lot of politicians and none of them are liked at all.
    • Protonz, on 10/10/2007, -2/+24We aren't talking 1000 Spartans.
    • someidiotinnj, on 10/10/2007, -4/+5Zombies could totally do it!
    • BECoole, on 10/10/2007, -7/+1Mmmm.. yeah. An M240 on one side, 1,000 Marxist on the other...
  • Chassit, on 10/10/2007, -38/+17"EXPOSING GOVERNMENT CORRUPTION AND THE NEW WORLD ORDER"
    The New World Order? Puh-lease, so much for using a credible source...
    • janne1, on 10/10/2007, -9/+6What about Bush's New World Order?
      http://www.sweetliberty.org/issues/war/bushsr.htm
      How about Gordon Brown's New World Order?
      http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6277747.stm
      What's your point? Try taking a look at some things instead of just riding the mainstream.
      • Chassit, on 10/10/2007, -4/+7I have read, extensively, not only on the NWO but many other Konspiracy theories, thank you very much.
        • MemeWarrior, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Now go learn how to spell conspiracy. Or hell, just click the "Check Spelling" button.
    • urbandistrict, on 10/10/2007, -6/+3Why would you think it's not? Just because it's been over-sensationalized doesn't make the workings any less real.

      You think the excerpt from: "The last time of prophecy has come to the Cumaean Sibyl; a brand new great order of the ages is born; for now the Virgin and the age of Saturn have returned; now a new Child has been sent from the heavens." landed on our dollar and the YALE business dept for decorative text filler only and is completely without meaning?

      There is a World Order and there are deal-makers this will always be a constant. Whether it's for the greater good or greed is a debatable subject.
      • Chassit, on 10/10/2007, -3/+4I think is not credible because everything I have read on the subject is poorly written, far fetched and, oh yeah, contradicts what the other guy wrote on it. Like I said puh-lease. Spare me.
  • presidentpaul, on 10/10/2007, -30/+15IMPEACH NOW(arrest Cheney first)
    and shut down the military industrial complex(corporate welfare)NOW
    peace&liberty=PRESIDENT PAUL!
  • Boing, on 10/10/2007, -56/+98I was hoping for the follow up story:

    1000 idiots rush the White House. Bullets fly.

    Darwin wins x1000.
    • mrbeagle, on 10/10/2007, -3/+29The massacre of 1000 unarmed American civilians would completely damn the administration. I say go for it
      • postaldave, on 10/10/2007, -17/+3no, 1000 people asking for a royal ass beating does not equal anything.
        • BelXul, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6I'm sure it would be as well received as the Boston Massacre.
    • Wasyu, on 10/10/2007, -2/+8If that happened that 1000 would become 40 million and this administration would come to a very abrupt end.
      • ozjonesjr, on 10/10/2007, -10/+3What I think you failed to grasp was the the intent of Boing's post. Instead you relied on your liberal brain to come up with the genius response that you did. He's right though, 1000 less morons to have to deal with in this country. Which, by the way, I'm proud to admit I'm a citizen of and wouldn't rather live anywhere else in the world. I'm sick of seeing all these posts about how horrible the US is etc. etc. Maybe you should join the other .0003% of the population who are trying to represent America by impeaching Bush...or just move to Canada. Pathetic.
        • blackmage439, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4And you need to work on your math. "0.0003%" of the population want to impeach Bush? *****. YOU apparently failed to grasp 3rd grade arithmetic...
          • Sabisyns, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Um no, that many people actually stood up for what they believed in, theres MANY more that want him impeached, unfortunately we didn't get the memo to attend. Thanks for opening your mouth :)
          • ozjonesjr, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Alright. Let me walk you through this step by step. It really isn't that hard. All you blowhards who spend all your time whining and complaining may say that you want Bush impeached but, unfortunately for you, that's all you do, whine and complain. You aren't included with this group of 1000 people. This story is about a group of 1000 people who actually DID something to try and make their dissastisfaction known. Unfortunately for them, in the big picture of things, they are an extremely small minority.....Here's the complicated math for 'blackmage439'...1000 (actual number of protesters) divided by 300,000,000 (actual US population-approx.). If you can stop playing World of Warcraft for a moment you'll see that 1000/300,000,000 equals .0003%.
        • CyanideMonkey, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3Why can't people like you see that Bush (and Cheney and all the goons working for and with them), have caused not only very bad things to Iraqi and Afgani people, but to your own people? They have clamped down on your rights and put the "great" USA into a huge pit of debt while filling their own pockets. Open your eyes!
    • manixrock, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8In fact, such an act may serve the purpose of putting the administration in a position of forced choice between siding with the people and seizing the president, or siding with Bush and using force against those people, which risks outright revolt by the people.
      • neuropsychguy, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3You use force: rubber bullets, tear gas, all sorts of things like that. It would be really easy to get rid of a crowd of only 1000 with non-lethal methods. So using force is obvious.
        • mishabear, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Unless, of course, 500 of those 1000 have guns.
  • jpmulli, on 10/10/2007, -28/+10Hahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahah...............(had to breathe)hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
    • dde2, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1Does the article say if Ron Paul and Kunahooche (or whatever the F the idiot from Ohio name is) were leading the pack?
  • readme, on 10/10/2007, -43/+15Rubber bullets were invented for idiots like these NWO nutjobs. Screw it, use real bullets. I'm not a Bush supporter, but these types are always tin foil hat whack jobs.
    • reed311, on 10/10/2007, -10/+13I agree. We should just kill people with unpopular views. LOL, Libs. Free Speech was put into the Constitution to protect the popular speech, morons.
    • jmkiii, on 10/10/2007, -4/+13How do YOU stop the government from sending radio signals to your brain?
      • BelXul, on 10/10/2007, -1/+15Easy. I stopped watching TV, the translator of those radio waves.
      • WaltDismal, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1You start by not using a cellphone....
    • iticu, on 10/10/2007, -4/+6"Anyone who doesn't agree with me deserves a bullet."

      America has truly lost its principles.
    • Beveridge89, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6People trying to raid a government building and kidnap the President? If they even had a chance at suceeding, they would have to be shot.
    • gottadiggit, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Wow you sound like a rational and stabe person. NOT!
    • Beveridge89, on 10/10/2007, -2/+0No, im not really, but relatively, in a thread where we're discussing an attempt to kidnap the president, i am.
  • syroncoda, on 10/10/2007, -15/+7watch this plan fail. i'm all for getting that ***** behind bars and cheney for that matter too. i want to see the people responsible for torturing POW's, torture cheney and bush. Publicly. hell i'll PAY to watch them being administered corporal punishment in times square for the world to see.

    now the reason why i say this will fail is the fact that all the people who want to indict bush and cheney are too pussy to go and do it. and thats what the government knows.
  • zyklon, on 10/10/2007, -19/+19Now this is something I suppourt.
  • MercedRocks, on 10/10/2007, -40/+14Just when u thought the left wing nutjobs couldnt get any weirder.

    Hope they have fun when the Secret Service tazer's the ***** out of em'.
    • reed311, on 10/10/2007, -11/+5Yeah, they are pretty crazy. Though, at least they aren't as dangerous as the right-wing nutjobs, such as Al-Qaeda.
    • LastVisibleDog, on 10/10/2007, -10/+4All together now: "Don't Tase me, Bro"!!!
    • Shandooga, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7Calling people "nutjob" is an easy out that may excuse you from having to apply any real thought to the matter but it does not excuse you from your responsibility to the truth.
      • TJATL, on 10/10/2007, -4/+3The truth is none of these protesters witnessed any "crimes" committed by Bush/Cheney. Secondly, international law, which was referenced, has absolutely zero jurisdiction when compared to our law of the land, the Constitution. Yes they are nut jobs and I'd put money that 99% of them are socialists/neo-commies.
        • notque, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2They witnessed his order for aggression which is the supreme war crime.
        • hobonetweaver, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2The entire world witnessed it. We're still witnessing it.
      • MercedRocks, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1"Truth?" ..........c'mon be realistic. If we started allowing anybody and everybody to try and make a citizen's arrest of the Pres we'd have utter chaos.
  • maaddmax, on 10/10/2007, -17/+36You gotta be ***** kidding me right? Peace? There was no ***** peace before or after we invaded...
    • njaguar, on 10/10/2007, -6/+5That is the first thing I thought, too. Talk about ignorance. If you're going to cite statutes like that, you better damn well be sure they are correct.
      • eryximachus, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2All this thread proves is how ridiculous the Nuremberg trials were. It's the same sort of comedy of Germany versus the British Empire. The empire that controlled 1/4 of the globe was fighting a little country the size of Texas because THEY were hell bent on world domination. The Empire won the war against that little country, then lost their empire!

        Some victory.

        What goes around comes around I guess.
      • Beveridge89, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0The difference between German and British Empire are many. Gandhi would have been shot in five minutes in the German empire. While Britain was imperial, it was also liberal and democratic, which allowed such people to flourish. And don't forget the reason the war started was because that Texas sized country was looking to expand fast.

        And of course Nuremburg was just an excuse to execute Nazis. But who cares really?
    • rotundo, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Are you a resident of Iraq? And you prefer the current state of affairs to the previous state of affairs?

      I find that terribly hard to believe. I think you're rationalizing.
      • fumar, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0You are putting words into his mouth. He said nothing about a preference to the way things are in Iraq now. But back then didn't you think that Iraq would get better after Saddam was overthrown?
        • rotundo, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1No, I didn't. And I am on the record with many friends and family members over this because I got in arguments about it. I don't think Saddam was a good man. He was terrible. But day-to-day life in Iraq was not that bad when taken in context of the middle east. He said there was no "peace" ... there was much more peace in Iraq before we invaded. It is absurd to claim otherwise.

          I would have supported overthrowing Saddam if we had a real understanding and plan of how we were going to make things better afterwards. If someone could have explained to me how we were going to get the various groups to get along without an iron fist. But no: we thought it was a goddamn Hollywood movie and that if we killed Darth Vader peace would come to the galaxy instantly. What unbelievable ignorance, arrogance, and idiocy.

          So yeah. Hope we all learned something from this mess. But it sounds like we didn't.
      • Beveridge89, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Why is it people assume Saddams Iraq was better than todays Iraq? People still lived in fear, people still weren't free. The difference is now there is hope of that occuring, and in parts of Iraq is already a reality.
        • rotundo, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I don't assume it was better, I know it was better. I've read writings by people who lived there. People lived in less fear then than they do now. Please, go ask the people in Iraq if you don't believe me. It was, for a middle eastern country, a fairly modern and healthy state. Yes, that sounds absurd to us, but you don't get to make that decision: they do. Saddam was a bastard, but the day to day life of the majority was not so bad. This is why there was no viable revolt. Most Iraqis at this point feel it's all gone to hell. Even some American soldiers say they think the only way one can rule such a divided country as Iraq is with a bastard like Sadam. We had no understanding of this when we got involved, and that is unconscionable for the leaders of a country to act in such ignorance. They should known a lot more about the situation before reacting.

          Down the road, you're right: maybe it will get better. Maybe in 20 years they'll find some degree of peace and freedom. I hope they do. But that may have happened anyways. No amount of rationalizing can overcome the fact that we did something terribly stupid for the wrong reasons. At the very least, learn from your mistakes by admitting we totally ***** up. Maybe we can avoid such stupidity in the future.
  • HerrEisenheim, on 10/10/2007, -6/+69There is no accountability in Washington. If you are going to charge Bush with "War Crimes", you are going to have to charge the 4/5ths of the Senate and 2/3rds of the House that agreed to the Iraq War as well.
    • Shandooga, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Perhaps, but they all have plausible deniability in that they are not on TV building the case and holding the yellowcake.
    • notque, on 10/10/2007, -3/+14I think that's rational. They all should be charged with war crimes, I see no problem with this.
      • nilcam, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0I support that as well. The Senate and Congress are like the mother of an abused child - eventually, the child hates the mother more for not preventing the abuse.
    • fatdog789, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Logical fallacy.
      The legislature agreed to a war on the basis of information they thought warranted a war. The executive is actually responsible for running the war. The executive is the only body that can be held accountable for wartime decisions.
      It's analogous to this situation: you authorize your friend to use your computer to check his email. In the process of checking his email, he willfully views child porn. Under Herr's theory, the computer owner is just as guilty of viewing child porn as the friend, simply because he authorized the use of a related action (namely, using the Internet to check email).
      • HerrEisenheim, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0Nope. Wrong. Horrible analogy as well.
        • mishabear, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Actually, good analogy. You can say "wrong...horrible" but how about offering a good one? Dope.
          Congress voted for the war based on erroneous information. Now that the information has been proven wrong, Congresss OUGHT to vote to pull out of Iraq. They got rid of Saddam, which was the main reason for going in initially. Now we are simply providing fuel for the insurgents.
    • Wasyu, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1Sure we can round them all up and place them under a space shuttle or large rocket before launch.
    • ClosedCaption, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1The people who voted for it are responsible for authorizing the ability to use force without actually authoring "war" war.

      From that point on its Bush / Cheney's fault. They conducted it. And awarded every ***** who messed it up along the way. All bad news was defended by these people and they're supporters as partisan attacks to "fire up" the base. NOW after all those so-called "mistakes" NOW you say its 2/3 of the House and 4/5 of the House. Are you mad in the head or rewriting history?
      • HerrEisenheim, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0I'm fine, and I'm right. That's for asking though. Incidentally, are you mad in the head? H.J. Res. 114 passed by a 4/5ths / 2/3rds majority. It passed before the invasion of Iraq actually began. Look it up.

        Moreover, do you really understand to exactly what degree the President and VP have control of the war? It's not nearly as much as popular media might lead you to believe. Commander-in-Chief, perhaps, but few in the military are under any direct obligation to carry out his actual orders. He's so far removed from the situation, he doesn't even really attempt to try and influence to the degree pop-media portrays it. In fact, part of the reason that Bush was looking to create a "war czar" was to attempt to try to give the President a little more control over the direction of the war in a direct way. If you understand the military, you understand that it runs itself. The President gives broad orders and shapes some target goals and objectives, but it would be a fallacy to say he "conducts" a war the way you think of a conductor in a symphony.
        • mishabear, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Wrong again. Commander-in-Chief has the ULTIMATE authority. He has generals to guide him but the ULTIMATE credit and blame lays in his hands - just as a company has a CEO to take ultimate blame and credit. He may be far removed from the situation which is why his generals direct and command everything - like Bill Gates had VPs to run things while he was away. They acted in behalf of the CEO just as the generals act under the C-I-C's authority. Bush was looking for a "war czar" because he knew he was clueless on how to run a war - and he wanted to have a scapegoat to pin everything on when it went bad (as he knew it would). Why do you think no one took the bait?
    • Sabisyns, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1We need to hold them all accountable for deligating powers they are not allowed to deligate, theres a reason we have checks and balances. These are mostly the same people who initially voted for the Patriot Act without reading it. They are not voting for us, they are voting how they please.
  • LastVisibleDog, on 10/10/2007, -9/+38Funny, the New York Daily News says there were only 400 people there:
    http://www.nydailynews.com/news/2007/09/25/2007-09 ...

    Is ROGUEGOVERNMENT.COM playing fast and loose with the truth - isn't that what they claim Bush is doing - isn't that called hypocrisy?
    I am not sure mob rule is the best form of government.
    • ScionAltera, on 10/10/2007, -6/+5Or perhaps is the New York Daily News fudging the number down to make the event seem less important and the protesters more crazy?

      I don't know. I wasn't there. I'm all the way over here in Oregon. I'm just saying maybe neither one of them is telling the whole, accurate truth. Maybe the truth lies somewhere in the middle, like it usually does.
      • LastVisibleDog, on 10/10/2007, -4/+3Who should we trust - the sixth largest daily newspaper in the United States (in business since 1919) that has won ten Pulitzer Prizes and has a moderate editorial staff or some unheard of self-promoting group of left wing extremists that are pissed their guy did not win the election - decisions, decisions!
    • Shandooga, on 10/10/2007, -3/+10funny, they also said there were 400,000 at the Million Man March.
      • LastVisibleDog, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3Actually that was the park police
    • dracostimpy, on 10/10/2007, -3/+13Uhh, you mean the NY Daily News that ran the headline "THE EVIL HAS LANDED" when bogeyman-du-jour Ahmadinejad came to town? Yeah, I think I just might take roguegovernment.com's word over theirs.
      • LastVisibleDog, on 10/10/2007, -12/+4So you are a big fan of Holocaust-denying Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad - Do you also believe there are no homosexuals in Iran?
        • YourDoom123, on 10/10/2007, -3/+9just cause the man has no clue what he's talking about doesn't mean he should be allowed to speak; free speech is only free if we protect the rights of whom we disagree with...
        • TJATL, on 10/10/2007, -4/+2Freedoms within the constitution are guaranteed for citizens only. Do you expect non-citizens the right to bear arms within our country? Please go back and sue your teachers and school district for doing a horrible job of providing you with the government education you received.
        • Beveridge89, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3They weren't trying to deny his right to speak. They were just saying hes Evil. Which is true, and just shows their journalistic credentials.
        • TotalHalibut, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2It's funny, I don't remember any such headline when Bush visited our country.
        • BelXul, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1TJATL, I have to disagree. The wording of the Constitution is clear enough to point out that many of the rights in the Bill of Rights are the rights of all men, not just citizens. Those rights are not granted by the constitution, just pointed out by it an enshrined by those who wrote it.
  • luke374, on 10/10/2007, -19/+19I think impeaching Bush would be the most effective way to make the rest of the world like us again.
    • notque, on 10/10/2007, -5/+12That, and if we stop committing war crimes. Most of the presidential candidates still consider war crimes "on the table".
    • HenryJonesJr, on 10/10/2007, -8/+2Are you really that insecure that you sit around worrying that the world doesn't like you? Boo-hoo...
    • postaldave, on 10/10/2007, -7/+1that was the most limp wristed splineless comment i have ever seen on digg and that is saying something.
  • Cyberblue501, on 10/10/2007, -14/+8To bad there are people dumb enough to still like George Bush. If you like Cheyne Dicks in George Bush then you are dumb. Who ever likes Bush should be considered and enemy of the people.
    • bingobongony, on 10/10/2007, -2/+7People like you and commnets like that are the reason why the anti-Bush corwd gets a bad reputation.
    • phatcat77, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1I would just love to live in a world were your sense of justice and fairness is law (/Sarcasm)
  • JAVandiver, on 10/10/2007, -19/+18What so we can trade one tyrant for 1000? We live in a country of laws, which the President has yet to be indicted with any. Until then you have nothing. I can say that everyone who marched in these demonstrations commited treason as well, but it does not make it so.
    • JAVandiver, on 10/10/2007, -3/+5Text should read: "...has yet to be indicted with any crimes." Damn "your session has expired" crap...
      • JAVandiver, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2It got me again! "...crime."
        • spidoman, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4Step 1: Think
          Step 2: Type

          I think you got those mixed up.
    • b3nd3r, on 10/10/2007, -3/+10"We live in a nation of laws, badly written and randomly enforced"
      Frank Zappa
    • Swarms, on 10/10/2007, -2/+0Thank you for increasing the common sense on digg by at least 1 point. That brings the total to around.....1.
  • notque, on 10/10/2007, -14/+35Noam Chomsky on Nuremberg

    Nuremberg is an interesting precedent.

    The Nuremberg case is a very interesting precedent. Of all the tribunals that have taken place, from then until today Nuremberg is, I think, the most serious by far. But, nevertheless, it was very seriously flawed. And it was recognized to be. When Telford Taylor, the chief prosecutor, wrote about it, he recognized that it was flawed, and it was so for a number of fundamental reasons. For one thing, the Nazi war criminals were being tried for crimes that had not yet been declared to be crimes. So, it was ex post facto. ‘We’re now declaring these things you did to be crimes.’ That is already questionable.

    Secondly, the choice of what was considered a crime was based on a very explicit criterion, namely, denial of the principle of universality. In other words, something was called a crime at Nuremberg if they did it and we didn’t do it.

    So, for example, the bombing of urban concentrations was not considered a crime. The bombings of Tokyo, Dresden, and so on -- those aren’t crimes. Why? Because we did them. So, therefore, it’s not a crime. In fact, Nazi war criminals who were charged were able to escape prosecution when they could show that the Americans and the British did the same thing they did. Admiral Doenitz, a submarine commander who was involved in all kinds of war crimes, called in the defense a high official in the British admiralty and, I think, Admiral Nimitz from the United States, who testified that, ‘Yeah, that’s the kind of thing we did.’ And, therefore, they weren’t sentenced for these crimes. Doenitz was absolved. And that’s the way it ran through. Now, that’s a very serious flaw. Nevertheless, of all the tribunals, that’s the most serious one.

    When Chief Justice Jackson, chief counsel for the prosecution, spoke to the tribunal and explained to them the importance of what they were doing, he said, to paraphrase, that: ‘We are handing these defendants a poisoned chalice, and if we ever sip from it we must be subject to the same punishments, otherwise this whole trial is a farce.’ Well, you can look at the history from then on, and we’ve sipped from the poisoned chalice many times, but it’s never been considered a crime. So, that means we are saying that trial was a farce.
    • GabrielS, on 10/10/2007, -16/+11-1 Chomskyspam
    • davharrington, on 10/10/2007, -10/+7the sad thing is none of these asshats actually read chompsky, they just want to spew hate and copy and paste from sites where bloggers never read a page of Chompsky either.
      • notque, on 10/10/2007, -4/+8Ask me any question about it, and I can respond with how I feel, or how Chomsky feels if you like. You want to state wild accusations with no basis in reality. I'll humor you. Ask something and ye shall receive.
        • EIderofzion, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2what year did "neo-cons" come to power? And do tell about the term "vanguard"
    • Beveridge89, on 10/10/2007, -6/+3Yeah, why bother posting Chomsky over-complicated way of stating the obvious? Everyone knows Nuremburg was just a way to punish the Nazis. Good thing to, because they deserved it.

      Incidentaly, thats why Nuremburgs charges shouldn't be used to charge Bush. There arbitary charges which could be applied to pretty much any war leader, from Lincoln to Thatcher.
    • TJATL, on 10/10/2007, -10/+3No matter what BS Noam feeds you, your socialist utopia is flawed and will never come to be.
      • hobonetweaver, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2There's just too many assholes.
    • BECoole, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3That's why it's ridiculous to even try vanquished foes on war crimes. Just execute them and be done. The reasoning? They lost.
  • Wonderama, on 10/10/2007, -13/+21Even if you're in agreement with these protest-du-jour idiots, equating Bush with Nuremberg-style war crimes is completely counter-productive to promoting their cause.
    • notque, on 10/10/2007, -6/+8It's irrelevant if it's "counter productive", the question is, Is it true?

      Well, we can quickly determine if it is true. It's clear as day. Is the truth not important to you?
      • TJATL, on 10/10/2007, -5/+5Bush = Hitler? When did we start throwing every muslim into a furnace or gassing them? Seriously, grow the ***** up.
        • notque, on 10/10/2007, -3/+5I did not say that Bush is equivalent to Hitler. It is true that they both committed war crimes. It may also be true that they both like a similar type of music. It doesn't indicate anything aside from the statement.

          You saying that one true statement on both indicates they committed the exact same atrocities shows the level of which propaganda works on people. You'll find any rational to avoid the truth that dear leader has committed an atrocity.
          • JAVandiver, on 10/10/2007, -3/+3What atrocities?! Yes there have been civilian casualties, however, in the current action in Iraq there have been significantly less than were in WWII, Korea, or Vietnam. War is not pretty. I also do not think that President Bush has ordered the extermination of all Muslims, nor the internment of everyone on Arabic descent in the United States. Shut up you Anarcho-syndicalist apologist!
          • Steroblo, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0Any Bush comparison to Hitler is not true, and not cool. Seriously, people on here that spit this wrong-ass rhetoric are misguided, uneducated little ***** that sit down in their basement and read these articles all day and stroke it to Ron Paul YouTube videos. Give me a ***** break. Not only is it wrong, but it's disrespectful. Please find a better platform to make your arguments and maybe you will be taken a little more seriously.
    • krnldmp, on 10/10/2007, -3/+3You're right. What Bush is doing makes that old stuff seem downright funny.
      • JrGhoull, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1if u go too extreme you lose credibility. save the nazi-esk name calling foe the genocidal maniacs. of course over 100,000 iraqis have been killed, so maybe my argument has already lost a little ground...
  • Glorax, on 10/10/2007, -16/+14Why do people who are probably anti bush themselves, love to bash people that are actively anti bush? Conspiracy theorist or not, anybody that is actively trying to rid the world of the Bush administration is doing some good.
    • JAVandiver, on 10/10/2007, -5/+8The enemy of my enemy is not my friend.
    • Hetman, on 10/10/2007, -7/+7No they are not. They are hurting the cause by making us look insane.
      • Glorax, on 10/10/2007, -4/+5So because you disagree with their reasoning you consider their efforts insane? This is why there is no active resistance in this country. Because no one can agree about what to resist against.
      • Hetman, on 10/10/2007, -3/+4I think there insane because there theorize are not logical atleat the 911 troothers. I agree there was ample warning and the bush and clinton administration could have done a better job of preventing it. But there is no evidence that 911 was an inside job.
    • phatcat77, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1Absolutely Not! CT's are deranged psychopaths and they should definently not be affecting, or running the country.
  • compgeek, on 10/10/2007, -8/+7these people can put out a citizen's arrest all they want that's their right but to honestly think that bush would allow himself to be taken down is another matter. thankfully this tyrant's term ends in less than a year and he can never ever come back THANK GOD!
    • HenryJonesJr, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5How does it feel to completely contradict yourself from one sentence to the next? First you say he'd never allow himself to be taken down and then you say he'll be out and never back in less than a year. Wouldn't a real "tyrant" ignore silly things like term limits and elections? Maybe we should point and laugh at you for saying something so silly because you know we'd all be doing that if Bush had said it.
    • Optic7, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1You do realize that his term only ends in January 2009, right? That's a little over one year and three months.
    • Sabisyns, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1He's only leaving if he doesn't put us into a Marshal Law situation where his word is law, but hell with the way he's been handling things so far, i see this happening in the next year.
  • fadetoone, on 10/10/2007, -14/+6Yawn...
  • Wesside, on 10/10/2007, -8/+41I honestly hope you guys accomplish getting him out of office.

    -Canadian
    • LastVisibleDog, on 10/10/2007, -11/+3Yeah - they have a sinister plan and it is GOING TO WORK!!! Bush will be out of office in January of 2009 (you can take that to the bank)

    • Swarms, on 10/10/2007, -15/+299% of us don't want foreigners' opinions on our political system
      -American
      • grasshands, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7100% of Canadians do not want US policy to influence our laws, lives, liberties...yet they do...how about your government trying to extradite Marc Emery to the US for something that is 100% legal here, but under your laws, illegal. So I think we Canadians should have our opinions heard.
        • OHaloThar, on 10/10/2007, -7/+1Canadians dont count, go back to tree hugging hippy
        • BECoole, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2You can start by handling your own defense.
          • hobonetweaver, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Canadian defense involves not pissing off foreign nations. Seems to work pretty well, eh?
      • TotalHalibut, on 10/10/2007, -4/+2I can safely say that there's a few countries that wouldn't mind not getting invaded by the US on their mission to spread democracy in a manner of an STD. So I can safely say that if the US is going to continually enforce it's opinions on the world, via military and economic methods, then we quite frankly don't give a flying ***** what you want.
      • sinn98, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3So I guess that leaves 1% of you who don't live in a ***** bubble?

        Sounds about right...
      • hobonetweaver, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5I'd value a foreigner's input more than that of a product of our own culture.
    • phatcat77, on 10/10/2007, -4/+1Shut Up!
    • nygrissplz, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5Yes, so do I...

      As an American I think we should be listening to other opinion (listen up swarms) because we cannot improve as a nation while at the same time being ignorant to the criticism of others. Your gung-ho-America-doesn't-give-a-***** attitude is what is wrong with a huge portion of this nation. Get it through your head: If we don't make changes soon, we will become China's bitch. If they so wanted their money back, they could crush us easily, economically. Change is necessary. NOW.
  • thcobbs, on 10/10/2007, -21/+7People like this give rationally dissenting Americans a BAD NAME.
  • Zandarrr, on 10/10/2007, -7/+41This pisses me off so much. Here we have 1,000+ people attempting to arrest our President for unspeakable war crimes and crimes against humanity while Congress and other elected officials are just sitting with their thumbs up their asses. "Oh yeah... it feels really good right there." I say impeach our entire government.
    • fatdog789, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Do you even know what impeachment is?
      IMPEACHMENT = A determination that there is enough evidence to proceed with charges or further investigation. Essentially, impeachment is the governmental form of a grand jury indictment. Once the House impeaches, it would be for the Senate to conduct a trial, with SCOTUS acting as the judge(s), after an additional investigation into the charges upon which the government officer has been impeached.
      IMPEACHMENT != CONVICTION.
      • JrGhoull, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1hahah he did go over board, and did maybe screw up with the def. of impeachment...but i think his idea in principle is sound. the citizens of the usa (myself included) and its government have become soft. we could really use a revolution, and ideally a group of educated people who have studied past cultures, know what went wrong and why, and what kind of system will ensure that that wont happen.
      • absolutroot, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1how bout we just get guy fawkes on their asses. i would elaborate but i dont want secret service breakin down my door/
    • buckrogers1965, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1They have one thumb up their ass and they are sucking on the other one, awaiting eagerly the presidents command for them to "SWITCH!" Seriously, this congress is as much a lap dog of the presidents as his all republican congress he had last term. Name anything that they haven't caved to Bush on.
  • KevinDupuy, on 10/10/2007, -16/+6Great. Now can they actually prove he is guilty of the crimes?

    Didn't think so.
    • notque, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5He's guilty of the supreme war crime of aggression, and has broken the U.N. charter as well on aggression. That's Nuremberg and the U.N. as well as common sense.
    • Beveridge89, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1There are worse war crimes than agression. Saddam commited many of them.
      • leunghoi, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Yeah, like torturing people, right? We never do that. We change the law so that torture is not torture. We got our basis covered first before we do it. Last but not least, if we didn't support Saddam, he wouldn't be able to commit those "worse war crimes." What did that make us.
      • Beveridge89, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Your an idiot. Did you know the US supplied Saddam with about 1% of his weapons? The USSR supplied over 50%, China 20% and France 10%. Since im British, ill tell you we supplied 0.2%, usually rounded down to 0%. So exactly how was it our support that kept Saddam in power?

        Im not going to defend torture. But compared to what Saddam did, what your country does is hardly torture at all. Saddams torture would involve brutal beatings, cutting off fingers, and so much more, usually culminating in murder. Just because what the US does and what the baathists did are both called torture does not make them the same.

        And torture was not in fact what I was referring to. Saddam commited much, much worse. Try mass executions of enemy soldiers and civilians, destruction and gassings of entire towns, and genocide. I know it makes it easier to oppose Bush if you pretend hes as bad as our true enemies, but face reality.
      • buckrogers1965, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Two wrongs do not make a right.
  • Wargalas, on 10/10/2007, -16/+28Yes, but this is Digg. Not one damned one of you will actually show up. You'll all be too busy smoking weed, playing Halo 3 in your mom's basement or ***** apartment, talking about what you'll do when "the revolution comes". Save it for someone who may actually buy into your line of crap.
    • Hetman, on 10/10/2007, -5/+9Thats funny sense you are posting on digg. I agree with you though about no one doing anything. But I personally believe that the best way to change policy is through voting. But I strongly disagree with you that halo 3 and smoking pot is bad. They are both great.
      • Wargalas, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4Never said they were bad, just saying what most people on here would be doing. :)
    • Cyberblue501, on 10/10/2007, -9/+4Haha. I bet you don't live in your mom's basement. You live in your grandma's basement, basement. She put you down there because she is to embrassed of you.
    • dracostimpy, on 10/10/2007, -7/+3Boy, the neocon apologists sure are crawling outta the woodwork today. Hey, here's an interesting stat about Wargalas:

      Submitted: 80
      Made Popular: 0

      Keep trying, buddy! I'm sure you'll win our hearts and minds soon enough!
      • Wargalas, on 10/10/2007, -3/+5Well I am a conservative, so I do try to inject my own opinions and try to show people that just because Republicans have the reputation of being heartless pricks and in bed with oil companies, doesn't mean it's true. Just like how Democrats have a reputation of beings spineless and weak against crime and terrorism, but that's not the case with many of them, case in point, Rep. Brian Baird.
        • dracostimpy, on 10/10/2007, -4/+4I am a conservative; you are are GOP mindslave.

          The Republicans ARE heartless pricks and in bed with oil companies; it's true. For Christ's sake, don't you realize that? Did you not read about the pre-invasion energy task force meeting Cheney had WITH TOP OIL EXECS, wherein they drew lines on a map to divvy up Iraq's oil fields?

          If you are truly a conservative, you'd have realized by now that Bushmob are NOT conservatives; they're fascists. Slight difference. Oh, and as for the dems, they ARE spineless and weak against crime and terrorism, especially the crime and terrorism committed by themselves and their PARTNERS in the GOP.
          • Wargalas, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5You surely don't sound like a conservative. I'm not defending Bush in the least, and besides, do you even know the definition of a fascist? People on digg here love to throw that word around a lot without knowing it's true meaning.

          • dracostimpy, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Yes, I know the meaning of fascist. Did you know that Bush's grandfather, Prescott Bush, was instrumental in financing the rise of the Nazi party, or that he was involved in a plot to overthrow FDR and replace him with a fascist government? If not, Wiki him and read up. And as I already mentioned, when Cheney decides government policy with top oil execs at his side, is that not the god damn definition of fascism? Do YOU know the definition of a fascist!?!?

            I'm as conservative as they come; I believe in damn near no government at all because free people can run their own lives, I believe spending should only be on national defense (and that means all bases are ONLY in the US, not in 60 countries around the globe), I believe we should get rid of Social Sec/Medicare/DOE/FDA/USDA/DEA/etc - abolish ALL of those, and I believe that the Constitution is NOT a living, breathing document. Now please tell me what you think makes YOU a conservative.
      • TheFinaleofSeem, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1Wow. "You're ideas are teh stoopid because you didn't get a frontpage submission!" Not to mention you can still loathe Bush and think Diggers are ineffective at anything but online ranting.
        • sinn98, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1"online ranting" is all we have left in this democracy...
    • Beveridge89, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1I dugg you up dracostimpy, because I liked the hearts and mind reference. But I don't think anyone advocating an interventionist foreign policy is expecting to be popular in Digg.
    • eyebits, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Hey, I like my ***** apartment and I resemble that remark.
    • JrGhoull, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4believe it or not, sites like digg are a large part of the problem. the vietnam war is a perfect example. back then something like this got to teenagers and young adults to the extent that they would go and protest. now however everyone blogs about it. people may be getting just as pissed, or even more so. only difference is, unlike then, this "protesting" is alot quieter and easier on our fubar government.
  • ninjasteeve, on 10/10/2007, -11/+4Now how would something like a Hague trial or Nuremburg happen when the United States doesn't recognize the International Criminal Court? I say find some politicians with some real balls, recognize the ICC and let us, the world take care of this criminal. Until then, he's merely a crap president.
    • fatdog789, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2The US does recognize the ICC. In fact, we're one of the biggest proponents of the ICC. The Law Schools at Case Western, American, and WUSL all assist with the ICC trials as part of a government-sponsored program.
      However, the US does not recognize the ICC's jurisdiction over Americans.
  • bingobongony, on 10/18/2007, -20/+10Inaccurate title. Should read "1,000 Embarrass Themselves,"
    • TheFinaleofSeem, on 10/10/2007, -1/+31,000 get a rubber bullet in the ass.
  • Cyberblue501, on 10/18/2007, -17/+13Who ever likes Bush should be considered and enemy of the people.
    • TheFinaleofSeem, on 10/18/2007, -8/+3Whoever uses such idiotic, inane blanket statements based on who/what they like should be considered an enemy of the people.
  • socketman, on 10/18/2007, -19/+5Retarded - Bush isn't guilty of any crimes!
    He is fighting to make the world a better place, and I'd vote for him again if I had the chance.